stilllll waiting, Peter B...

Dear Dr page,If I were as childish as you, I would have opened a new thread that I am still waiting for your apology. As matter of fact, I mailed you a reference on this topic, and the contence demonstrates that certain genes have to be reconsiled, e.g. IL-1beta, LDH, etcetera. I asked you in a previous letter "if it doesn't matter that gene trees are not in accord with species trees why is there a discipline in evolutionary biology that reconsiles the trees in an utterly speculative manner by the addition and/or deletion of putative gene duplications?" Since you are the PhD evo-biologist --not me-- I expected that this is not such a difficult question. But, apparently it is a tough question for you, since you keep avoiding it.best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,YOU WRITE:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr page,
If I were as childish as you, I would have opened a new thread that I am still waiting for your apology.As matter of fact, I mailed you a reference on this topic, and the content demonstrates that certain genes have to be reconsiled, e.g. IL-1beta, LDH, etcetera. I asked you in a previous letter "if it doesn't matter that gene trees are not in accord with species trees why is there a discipline in evolutionary biology that reconsiles the trees in an utterly speculative manner by the addition and/or deletion of putative gene duplications?" Since you are the PhD evo-biologist --not me-- I expected that this is not such a difficult question. But, apparently it is a tough question for you, since you keep avoiding it.best wishes,
Peter--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am very childish, this is true.MY RESPONSE:
Yeah, it was obvious.YOU ALSO WRITE:
However, you are merely trying to pull a bait and switch type thing here.YOU claimed that evolutionary biologists say all gene trees must be congruent. I provide a quote form an evolutionary biologt that contradicts this. You have STILL to propvide any such support for your original contention.MY RESPONSE:
Quote from chapter 8.2 Gene trees and species trees, p286, Molecular Evolution, A Phylogenetic Approach by R Page and EC Holmes, isbn nr:0-86542-889-1."The implicit assumption made when we use molecular phylogenies to infer organismal relationships (section 8.1) is that GENE TREES ARE ISOMORPHIC WITH SPECIES TREES (caps are mine, PB) -- the former can be converted into the latter merely by substituting the name of the sequence with the name of the organism form which the sequence was obtained. As sequence data have accumulated it has become increasingly clear that the relationship between gene trees and species trees may be more complex than a simple one-to-one correspondence."AND from chapter 8.2.1:"One of the first attempts to deal with this PROBLEM (caps are mine, PB) is the concept of RECONSILED TREES, first introduced by Morris Goodman and colleagues in 1979..... etcetera"You say:
I have avoided nothing - your question/claim are false and vacuous.I say:
Apparently, may claim is supported by the reference above.YOU SAY:
There IS NO discipline whose sole purpose is to 'reconcile' gene trees and species trees.I SAY:
Apparently, you didn'r read Dr R. Page's work.YOU SAY:
Now, please provide documentation supportive of:1. your claim re: evolutionary biologists believing that all gene trees and species trees must be congruentI SAY:
See my reference above.You say:
2. your claim that there is a discipline whose purpose is to reconcile gene trees and species treesI SAY:
Apparently, it is a (sub)discipline of molecular phylogeny.AND YOU SAY:
As for this gibberish about an apology - I already admitted that I was in error, that I did not realize that you were referring to Rod Page.I SAY:
Admitting you were wrong is a good start.YOU SAY:
Now, how about some apologies for misrepresenting my colleagues and their work?I SAY:
No, as demonstrated above I was right.YOU SAY:
Yes Peter B, I might be childish, but as yet, I am not purposely deceptive.I SAY:
Purposely deceptive? If I were you I wouldn't use such words in a discussion. I could demand for another apology. For that you accuse me of deception. Luckily, I am not childish. YOU SAY:
You are engaging in a campaign of disinformation. That, or you are competely ignorant of the entire field. I vote a little of each.I SAY:
All information I reported here was backed up by literature. And, please, mind your words.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-15-2002]

Dear Dr Page,Maybe you didn't get it but ISOMORPHIC is greek and means SAME FORM. Thus according to these phylogeneticists the form of the gene tree has to be the same form as the species tree. So, I proved my point. Now, all you can do is distort my words or back track.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,You write:I know what ISOMORPHIC means. I also know what IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION means.Do you?MY RESPONSE:
My dictionary says: Implicit, 1) implied though not plainly expressed; 2) virtually contained; 3) absolute, unquestioning, unreserved.Which one do you prefer?My disctionary also says: Assumption, 1) the act or an instance of assuming; 2) the act of an instance of accepting without proof, 3) arrogance; 4) the reception of the Virgin Mary bodily in heaven, according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine.Which one do you prefer? Not #4, I guess YOU SAY:
Do you understand what reconciliation means?It seems not.MY RESPONSE:
My dictionary says: Reconcile = harmonise; make compatible.YOU SAY:
I suggest you read R. Page's book again, and this time for reasons other than finding a few key quotes that you can spin.MY RESPONSE:
Actually I have it right here on my desk, and I rather like his work.YOU SAY:
As you have been unable to substantiate your claims re: 'discipline' devoted to 'reconsiling' trees and evolutionary biologists needing gene trees and species trees to be the same, I will conclude that you cannot.MY RESPONSE:
According to the meaning of the words (see above), I substantiated my claim and you are in denial. However, if gene trees do not have to be in accord with species trees, what is all this fuss about? And also, what is the reconciliation good for? Please explain, so I can understand it. Thanks in advance,Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Guys (Mammuthus, Mark24, Dr Page),All you do is avoid the problem. I quoted Page and Holmes and I was right there. However that wasn't the problem. The actual problem I mentioned was the IL-1beta incongruence. I checked the claim on IL-1beta in the human genome. If the duplication that reconciles the trees is present it should be traced back in chromosome 2 (as emphasised several times). The duplication that can be found in this chromosome, however, gave rise to IL-1 alpha. That is the problem. Horizontal transfer? From mouse to human? Everything is possible in evolutionism, I guess. All I wanted to demonstrate is that evolutionism can readily be falsified at the genomic level now the human genome has been sequenced. That was my intial statement; that the genome is not in accord with evolutionism. And I gave you several examples. More?Best wishes, and have a nice day,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-21-2002]

Dear Mammuthus,You write:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Guys (Mammuthus, Mark24, Dr Page),
All you do is avoid the problem. I quoted Page and Holmes and I was right there. However that wasn't the problem. The actual problem I mentioned was the IL-1beta incongruence. I checked the claim on IL-1beta in the human genome. If the duplication that reconciles the trees is present it should be traced back in chromosome 2 (as emphasised several times). The duplication that can be found in this chromosome, however, gave rise to IL-1 alpha. That is the problem. Horizontal transfer? From mouse to human? Everything is possible in evolutionism, I guess. All I wanted to demonstrate is that evolutionism can readily be falsified at the genomic level now the human genome has been sequenced. That was my intial statement; that the genome is not in accord with evolutionism. And I gave you several examples. More?Best wishes, and have a nice day,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-21-2002]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------***********************And yet another reason why you are incorrect...Hughes AL.
Evolution of the interleukin-1 gene family in mammals.
J Mol Evol. 1994 Jul;39(1):6-12.And horizontal transer of genes from mouse to humans is hardly far fetched as they have actively transposing ERVs that can form infectious viral particles....and pigs ERVs can infect human cells....and snake retroelements have integrated intot the ungulate germ line and so on and so on...MY RESPONSE:
And thus --according to evolutionism-- the mouse copy of IL-1beta carried by a virus integrated exactly adjacent to the human IL-1 alpha copy? Your solutions sounds like Dr Page's explanation of genes in human not present in primates: random deletion in all primates but man. I have to say, the stories get better and better.
I think I will check the presence of viral sequences in this region tomorrow.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-22-2002]

Dear Dr Page,YOU SAY: [QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
Your solutions sounds like Dr Page's explanation of genes in human not present in primates: random deletion in all primates but man.[QUOTE] 1. Please provide the quote in which I stated that.MY RESPONSE:
You are of particular short memory. In your mailing #170 (thread molecular evidence against random mutation) you gave this brilliant evolutionary explanation for the gene in the human LCR16a region not present in apes:Read my response to your #170 again, it reads:YOUR #170 MAILING:
Gee, Petey - never heard of deletions before? Of course, look at what you wrote:"...GENES PRESENT IN HUMAN NOT PRSENT IN MAN. "MY #171 RESPONSE:
SLIP OF THE PEN. IT SHOULD HAVE READ ...PRESENT IN HUMAN NOT PRESENT IN PRIMATES. BUT NOW I SEE, DELETED 'AD RANDOM' IN ALL PRIMATES BUT MAN. YE, I COULD HAVE EXPECTED THAT. WELL, DEAR SLPX, THE STORY OF EVOLUTION GETS BETTER AND BETTER.......CONVINCING.MY CURRENT RESPOSNSE:
So, again I provide evidence for what I claim. And, all you can do is deny/distort your own words or backtrack.YOU SAY:
2. Please find out what a Primate is.MY RESPONSE:
My Oxford dictionary reads: Primate; Any animal of the order ‘Primates’, the highest order of mammals, including tarsiers, lemurs, apes, monkeys, and man.
[it should be noted that all this is according to evolutionism, pb]Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Dr Page,It was about the GENE present in human not present in apes. Not about the LCR16a region alone.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-23-2002]

Dear Dr Page,To be continued in the other thread (mol gen evidence against random mutations)best wishes
Peter